Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis GNO Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 406 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 550 reviews
on August 15, 2016
(-2 Stars) Somehow InfinityWard and Steam screwed up the installation of this game. Due to patches, Steam refuses to install the game from DVD and, instead, downloaded 14GB of game files from Steam. Even though the UI says "Installing from DVD", nothing happens because Steam is downloading the entire game in background. Save yourself the hassle and just buy the game code.

(-1 Star) Really loved MW2 and the varied environments you fought through. MW3 seems to be much shorter campaign and it feels like you spend half the time in dark (night + going through dark buildings). MW2 also seemed to run in higher resolution (almost HD) but MW3 does not even come close to that. For $13, it's good for the value.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 3, 2012
Short version: MW3 is not worth $60, but is not a bad game. If MW1 didn't exist, maybe Activision could consider charging a premium price for this game, but as it stands, MW3 is just a bit better than MW2. MW1 is still much better than both and can be had quite cheaply. I paid $45 for my MW3 and, not having paid a premium price for it, don't feel dirty. I recommend others also wait for a price drop rather than pay Activision's premium price for an Xbox port that still lacks features that MW had 5 years ago.

To anyone who has played MW2, there's no surprises here. To those who have never played Call of Duty or specifically the MW series: This is not a tactical shooter. The campaign is a set-piece action story/shooter, like being in a movie made by Michael Bay and Tom Clancy (and, at times, equally ridiculous.) You move through the game along a specific path, oohing and ahhing at the explosions and effects and you shoot anything that happens to enter the frame. This isn't necessarily bad, but it isn't for everyone. The multiplayer is also more run-and-gun than tactical shooter. Hardcore modes of play make it a bit more realistic, but still this is not Ghost Recon.

Longer version:
Although nobody would like to crack skulls of Infinity Ward and Activision more than me following MW2's disastrous PC release, I must defend some aspects of MW3. Seriously, I have no idea why they made the ridiculously, almost comically stupid, decision to simply to a straight port of MW2 from Xbox to PC. All they had to do was leave in stuff that MW1 already had--dedicated servers, high player counts, and LEAN--and probably MW2 would have been hailed as the best thing evarr. They did not do this and the PC gaming community was rightly outraged. Indeed, more than 2 years since MW2 has been released, its crappy match-making system still doesn't really work; completely unacceptable for a game that cost $60 plus additional costs for map packs (without which you will not be able to play.) These are the sorts of obviously terrible decisions that when a company head makes them, the company would cease to exist in a rational universe.

Instead, we get MW3. So did Infinity Ward/Activision learn anything from the MW2 debacle? Well, they learned a little.

Campaign: The campaign is fairly short. I completed it in a weekend on the second-to-hardest setting. I believe this was due more to the campaigns getting easier than it is reduced content. I noticed that most levels I breezed through. MW1's campaign had me replaying the same part over and over again trying to get past it, which added to the length. However, it does seem like the MW3 campaign is easier than the MW2 campaign which was easier than the MW1 campaign, and it's just gotten too easy. That said, I don't mind the fact that I don't have to replay the same section over and over again very often, as it's a very "puzzle-like" experience rather than an interesting tactical challenge, and shooting at NPC badguys gets repetitive after awhile. The few parts I did need to play again and again to get past were not more entertaining because of it.

The campaign is quite linear, you don't really have freedom of movement or decision, but that's a design choice really, not a failing. Games that are story-driven and have set-piece sequences tend to be more linear because the player needs to be in the right place at the right time to see them. Decide for yourself if that's for you.

Some parts of the campaign are ridiculous, namely the Russian Atlantic fleet being in New York harbor for some reason. Suffice to say in MW's world, the USN apparently doesn't exist at all (or the Russian fleet would have a helluva time crossing the Atlantic Ocean), but a small team of Delta Force operators taking down one jamming tower can turn the tide of a world war instantly. But let's be fair: This is a video game. And even though it is ridiculous, it's not really more ridiculous than some of Clancy's novels, which ostensibly should be more serious.

Bottom line is they finish the story, it's fairly entertaining (if unrealistic), they don't really break any new ground (in fact, some parts of some missions are exactly the same as from MW2 and MW1, even down to the dialog), but it's pretty well what you would expect, so I don't really get some of the criticisms of the campaign.

Multiplayer: Dedicated servers are back, but I agree with others that they are clearly an add-on, much like an afterthought, and IW probably had to be arm-twisted by Activision to put them in. Ridiculous. And getting them working is inconvenient and confusing. But they do work and exist. I'm not awarding points for IW putting back in a feature that's been in games for more than a decade, though.

I mistakenly thought that with Dedicated Servers in MW3, you had to rank up first in match-making servers to unlock weapons. This is not the case: On dedicated servers, everything is unlocked already. This is fine with me because I don't care about unlocking things and ranking up, but as of now, the dedicated servers are not heavily populated, so this may matter to other players.

Match-making is still considered the primary way to play. I must say the match-making is quite improved. No idea why this isn't fixed in MW2, but in MW3, I can get into a match-making game immediately instead of ten minutes after starting the game. In general, it just plays much, much better. I won't say this will be the case for everyone, but for me, I find match-making play actually tolerable. Hackers are still present, but in several hours of play, I encountered only 1 obvious hacker (aimbot.)

Perks and such are not much changed, except the killstreak system has been modified. Really not a lot to say about this as it isn't that big of a change.

My main gripe is the same as with MW2: It doesn't play like MW1. By that I mean that if I went into a team-style game on MW1, there would be "sides" of the map. One team would control one side and try to take the other from the other team. Some combination of map size and low player counts make this impossible in MW2 and 3, and this makes the multiplayer play more like randomly running around shooting. Team Deathmatch comes off more like Free-For-All.

Also, sniping seems to be a waste of time. MW1 was set up to support snipers, MW2 less so, MW3 seems even less so. There just aren't enough players to protect snipers from SMG's and there aren't enough areas with long ranges for snipers to be very useful (and with lower player counts, it's less likely you'll see an enemy run through your sniping area, too.) Shotguns seem underpowered, as well. I may change my mind about sniping and shotties over time as I gain skill and better understanding of the MW3 maps, but today I feel like assault rifles and SMG's are really the only guns that make any real sense the way the maps are laid out and the way the game works.

Seems that perks are better balanced than in MW2, I haven't seen anyone owning everyone with grenade launchers and such, but again my opinion on that could change. MW3 seems like airpower is a pretty tolerable level.

One thing that is improved over the previous MW's: Sound. The game sounds good with a good sound system or top-quality headphones. The guns sound really good, and this matters quite a bit.

Conclusion: This is again an Xbox port, but this time it isn't nearly so crappy. Sounds are good. Campaign is too easy, some parts absurd, but otherwise good. Multiplayer has dedicated servers as a sort of afterthought. Match-making works a lot better now. Still can't have more than 18 players, which is absurd. Still no lean? Gimme a break, Infinity Ward. Don't pay $60 for this.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 24, 2014
Pros: Great game. I'm mostly playing the game on multiplayer mode with my friend. I haven't played Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 yet so I may wait on playing the campaign mode till I play COD MW2 first.

Cons: The game on the disk is out of date. Immediately after activation of product key the game will start downloading from steam, as it says "update required". File is 14 gb and takes a whole day to download and install. Not that much of a big deal, but the DVD's should come with the updated versions of the game.

Other Thoughts: Great game. I recommend it. Its great for people who don't have "top of the line" computers. These are my specs and game runs just fine.

Asus M3N/H HDMI
AMD Phenom X4 9850 2.50 ghz
PNY NVIDIA Geforce GT 630 2GB
4GB RAM
250GB Western Digital HDD
600W Ultra X3 Series PSU
HP 20wm Monitor 1600:900 resolution.

NVIDIA Geforce Experience sets this game to optimal settings for best gameplay. Again awesome game. I recommend it.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 14, 2015
PC Version is beyond awful compared and an even worse port from the consoles. Thats all you need to know. This review is 4 years late because 4 years went by after CoD4 came out, and how many of those games were good for the PC after CoD4? 1... World at War, why? Because the PC version actually had browsers and mods, to start with!

The only decent thing saving this game is the campaign. You will be able to complete the MW storyline.
A very bad thing to know is that the maps of the multiplayer itself. Even the DLC are awful.

The worst thing is no support for PC, no support for hackers, etc. Half of your games you are playing against a hacker, half of your games you have to deal with the bad peer to peer pressure. A big letdown was the servers. We have servers in MW3 PC, but they are unranked, so no one plays them. At first MW3 was a bit moddable. But now, after a few patches since then. Nothing changes, no color pallet, nothing.

Do not get this game, that is all.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 19, 2013
Note: this review only covers the multiplayer aspect of MW3

MW3 is exactly what you would expect from a "Call of Duty" game: a lot of mindless running and gunning. There's nothing wrong with that if you enjoy it, which I do. There's also a lot of guns to choose from, it's fun to try them all out with different perks and killstreak combinations, and the online maps are fun to play on. But the main reason I bought this game was because I thought that the online community was active and there was plenty of servers to play on.

Boy, was I wrong.

There's less than 2000 people online at any given time. You might be thinking, "2000 people is still a lot of people, what is this guy complaining about?" The problem here is that the vast majority (1600+ people on average) are playing in the "Team Deathmatch" game mode. This means that the ONLY game mode you will be playing online is team deathmatch. It's impossible to find a public game of Search and Destroy and Domination because there are literally only a handful of people in these game modes. I can't even manage to get connected to another game mode without waiting 10 minutes before quitting in frustration. This severely cripples the online aspect of this game.

Another problem with the lack of an online community is that you continually run into the same people over and over. Since I am forced to play only TDM, I play with the same rotating group of about 50 people. I can tell right from the start of the game which team will win based on my past experiences with these people. This is very boring and too predictable.

There's also a lot of lag on this game. I can't connect to a lobby with less than 100 ping on average and I know my connection isn't the problem. I regularly play CoD: World at War, Black Ops 2, CS:GO, and BF2 with pings anywhere from 25-60. I guess that's what you get for forcing people into lobbies.

Pros:
-Occasionally entertaining

Cons:
-You're forced into only playing team deathmatch online
-Not many people online
-Lag

Final note: What a waste of $20. I'd recommend that you save your money and buy another FPS like CS:GO or any Battlefield.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 9, 2012
This game has no, and I mean NO changes from Modern warfare 2. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone besides people who enjoy playing these games all day long. There's no new innovations, just a few new guns, and the walking glitches are still there. Honestly, if I had paid full price for this game I would be terribly angry with myself. I'm not a call of duty hater, I enjoy the simplistic gameplay, but it terribly irritates me that Activision is reaping so much money from its consumers by simply changing a few guns and maps and charging full price for a game. It's very irritating. Like I said before, DO NOT BUY THIS UNLESS IT'S ON SALE...

UPDATE: I've decided to give a more in depth review:

Story: Same as always, a cut rate story that doesn't leave you feeling like you've accomplished anything... 6/10
Graphics: Slightly better than black ops. SLIGHTLY. Below other games available though. 6/10
Sound:Sound is pretty accurate in this game. 9/10
Gameplay: Like mentioned before, EXACT SAME as MW2. I'm not going to rate it because the simplicity is fun, but the neglected difference from the other games makes it very agitating...

Overall: Due to there being literally nothing new in the game aside from a story, I'll give this a 6/10, or slightly above average (with a 5 being average)
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 27, 2014
Well, know what you are in for before you buy this game. The best part of it is the online multiplayer. Yes, the weaponry sounds and "feels" authentic--very cool. The graphics are good--as good as current COD games, some may say. But none of that matters if you cannot play online.

That's the issue I have found. The online community is dwindling. Games are horribly small. Many versions of online play, like those on the advanced playlist, are not even available. That makes MW3 a pretty boring game.

I think PC is NOT the way to go on this. Buy the console version. I hear there are a lot more people playing on XBOX 360.

Now I kind of feel cheated. I bought the game at a nice low price, but how long will I be able to play it? And--unlike World at War--there is no awesome Zombies mode to play offline to make my purchase worth it. :(

Not recommended, unless you REALLY love COD.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 13, 2011
OK This is my first review for a game. I want to start by saying I am not a BF fan nor do I care to ever play it because to it is slow and boring so I will not compare to it as so many other reviewers are doing here. What I will do is tell you what is and what is not so good about this game.

First of all lets begin with the eye candy. The game is not the most amazing looking game out there but it looks great at highest settings. Ear candy, ahh not so great. I mean the voices and all good, ambient sound and music is top notch, no problems there but the weapon sound samples are how can I put it; if you take a gun, insert it in a toillet under water and shoot perhaps it will sound somewhat like the guns in the game. So if you want to hear realistic gun sounds this is not it. I shot a few of these guns in real life they do not sound as bad and muffled as this and high on bass and drouned. I do believe the MW2 sounds had better sampeling.

Single player now. The story is twisted and follows the story of the previous game. Not much to say here play it and you will find out. It is very orchestrated, direct and linear path. It has no other value but to tell a story and prepare you for the multiplayer.

Multiplayer: Everyone is asking about hackers, cheats and so on sisnce the review is for the PC version of the game. So far I have seen many hackers but not as bad as MW2. I don't think the hackers had time to develop the hack programs to a sofistication as you have seen in the previous game. I didn't yet see anyone taking over the game, I have not seen aimbot but I heard there are some out there. The hacks that I have see are wallhacks and recoil hacks. Very annoying.

Lag issues. There are issues with this as before but because there are so many players now you will find games that will satisfy. But one peculiar thing that they put in the game this time is a mathematical algorithm which takes the host and lags the host so there won't be an advantage. Theoretically this sounds good, but practically it is horrible. This is the way I know that I host a game, and it happens to me offten because I have very fast internet, I cannot kill anyone empty whole clips into the enemy and the enemy turns around shoots me once or twice and I am dead. In the kill cam it did not look as if I even shot one bullit. This feature is probably one of the most annoying things you will encounter if you host alot.

Aiming: I think the hit boxes are smaller then in MW2 but there is a problem here that hopefully they will address. Ok you know how you shoulder a gun to aim and fire for more precision? Fine you know that, well that is not exactly the truth in all cases. For close and even mid range combat do not bother shouldering. It is only wasted time the other guy already hip fired and killed you. Yeah you got no chance. Hip fire is so precise that shouldering is actually a bad thing to do. As you know if you are used from MW2 to shoulder fast as soon as you see somebody you will get killed alot.

Maps: Oh boy, this is the chapter of the game where they went really wrong. All maps are pretty much the same no variability. As you rememeber from MW2 there were maps and maps. There were some for long distance combat so snipping was recomended, some were mid range fights where you can use assault rifles and some were small for quick runs and small fire weapons basically for rushing. So you had snipping maps, camping maps and rushing maps. I know that everyone complained about camping maps. Ok you aint seen nothin yet. Check out the maps in MW3 camper heavens, there are no snipping maps, no rushing maps but only camping maps. It slows down the game, makes it frustrating and boring. BAD MAPS in one word.

If I would have had somewhere else to play this game before I bought it to know how it is like I wouldn't have spent my money. Stick to MW2 or to any other game you may like. I hope they will fix these problems but I really don't think they will fix the maps for no extra money. It is a game that could have been so much better but they grew lazy.

PS - Oh yeah I forgot about dedicated servers. They are not populated and you can't use every gun in the game and you can't advance in level. So really it is a feature which is useless at this time. If they will add every feature to dedicated server mode I will surely play it 100% of the time because I can choose low ping games and it plays like a dream.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 30, 2012
Let's start with some good things about this game.

PROS:
-Addicting as heck especially considering that you level up pretty quickly, but there's a ton of stuff to unlock (emblems, proficiencies, perks, mods, etc.) and each weapon has a unique feel to it.
-Killstreaks are rewarding... albeit a bit too rewarding (covered in the cons later)
-Matchmaking system is decently fast as long as you have a decent internet connection.
-Single player was epic. Felt a bit too linear at times but the cutscenes and dialogue and storyline are pretty engaging.
-Spec Ops mode, for when you just feel like challenging yourself.
-A bit more realistic than the other COD series, where you could get hit 5 times up close and not die. In this game, you can die in 3 pistol bullets at close range. Makes for a challenging and highly rewarding experience.
-Perks are a bit more balanced than in MW2.

Let's move onto the bad things about this game. Just to let you know I'm a huge COD fan AND a BF3 fan, but I'll do my best to review this from a COD player's perspective and leave BF3 to a Battlefielder's perspective.

CONS:
-Hackers. Hackers, hackers, hackers. This is especially problematic on PC. You'd think a perm IP ban on steam might scare these guys away, but nope. I've consistently seen level 50+ players using aimbots and locking on/following players through walls... players like me who use Asssassin Pro and Dead Silence and silenced weapons.

-Lag. Delay in registry makes for some pretty disgusting hitmarker moments. Since it's peer2peer based connection instead of dedicated server connection, host migration gets really annoying. If the host lives on Mars or some remote galaxy and has terrible internet connection, you're better off leaving the match and joining another game rather than risking extreme teleportation/death due to warping players whom you can't even hit because they're rubberbanding so hard.

-80% of the maps suck. The only decent maps are Terminal, Mission, Village, and Dome. I'm not sure what the developers were thinking when they were making the maps, because some of them are just disgusting and downright terrible - full of ridiculous camping spots and overall not a pleasure to play.

-Copies over a lot of the weapons from MW2. Hence, the affectionate nickname COD:MW2.5. P90, .44 Magnum, M16A4, ACR, UMP, AA-12, SPAS-12, Barrett .50 Cal, Dragunov, USP, and Desert Eagle just to name a few. And they're almost the exact same in terms of weapon firing and reloading/swapping animations. Funny how you pay $60 for a game with a ton of brand new weapons (MW2) and then you have to pay $60 again for a game that copies over half the guns of its predecessor.

-Shotguns are too underpowered and take too much patience/effort to unlock the range/damage proficiencies. I'm talking mostly the KSG-12, SPAS-12, and M1887. Only time they kill in one hit is within tactical knife range. Even then I've had hitmarkers with them using damage proficiency at point blank range despite my entire crosshair being over their torso. Takes three 12 gauge shotshell rounds to kill someone at 10m but only three 9mm pistol rounds at the same range -> Sledgehammer games logic.

-Overpowered guns: Akimbo FMG's can and will snipe you from halfway across the map, not just once but multiple times. Obviously because 9mm rounds are just that powerful and accurate. Dunno why they decided to make guns so d@mn powerful in this game. Type 95 is also another classic... not used as often since the follow up bursts are slow but you really need only 1 burst at close to medium range. Yes, Infinity Ward... a 5.8mm chinese round from a Type 95 has more damage than a 7.62x51mm NATO round from a CM901. Makes sense. Oh and ACR 6.8 and MP7... don't even get me started. They render half the assault rifles and submachine guns useless. Anyone who uses any of the above guns really isn't interested in playing the game for fun.

-Spawns. Are really bad. Every match I spawn in front of an enemy at least two times.

-Killstreaks. Are really, really overpowered. If the enemy has a UAV missile drone/chopper/AC-130/Osprey gunner it's pretty much over.

-Matchmaking system. If you leave a room because the map sucked or there was a hacker, chances are, if you pick the same mode, you'll be put into that same room again. Like seriously?

-No votekick. If there's a hacker in the room, best bet is to report him through steam and then leave and pick another game mode to play.

Don't buy this game. Wait for black ops 2. I heard they're actually using new guns and a decent map system plus dedicated servers. Don't be tempted to buy this game just because the quickscoping looks easy or you want a MOAB.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 30, 2013
I can't even decide where to begin. I held off getting this for a long time, but I wanted to see how the story ended after the first two games. I beat the single player in 4.5 hours. This game went for the Hollywood formula that everything has to be bigger, faster,and louder than the last. As such the story line is virtually non-existent. What there is you can barely follow because everything is going to fast.

Multiplayer- Garbage. The strategy is to jump around and spray as many bullets as you can. The maps seem to be well designed, but it still feels like a throwback to Quake. Aiming not required.

Special Ops missions. This seems to be very well done and adds some longevity to the game.

I paid $20 for this. I wish I had kept my cash. You want a good shooter, go get Battlefield 3, and probably Battlefield 4.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you are posting in the form of a question.
Please enter a question.
See all 78 answered questions


Need customer service? Click here